Richard Dawkins's Issues

[EllenMaksoud]

Lest anyone take him too seriously, in his book, "The God Delusion", Chapter 5, the reason for his anger at God and authority issues quickly becomes apparent. He was born in Kenya, the son of a particularly militant and religious father ...

 

I am not sure why anyone would consider him a credible threat to belief.

Edited August 29, 2013 by EllenMaksoud

[thesometimesaint]

Lest anyone take him too seriously, in his book, "The God Delusion", Chapter 5, the reason for his anger at God and authority issues quickly becomes apparent. He was born in Kenya, the son of a particularly militant and religious father ...

 

I am not sure why anyone would consider him a credible threat to belief.

 

Ad Hominem. Mr. Dawkins is a well respected scientist. I still disagree with him on what the Saints believe.

[mfbukowski]

Ad Hominem. Mr. Dawkins is a well respected scientist. I still disagree with him on what the Saints believe.

Funny, she didn't mention anything about how good a scientist he is.

 

Her point was that he is probably prejudiced against believers, due to an overbearing father's influence.  We often model our beliefs about Heavenly FATHER on our earthly FATHERS, and therefore, it is relevant to bring such factors as probable prejudice into the discussion.

[thesometimesaint]

Psychoanalyzing anyone via long distance is at best a wrong headed thing to do, and any conclusions based on that long distance psychoanalyzing are always suspect. Moreover they are virtually always wrong.

 

We don't appreciate when it is done to Joseph Smith. Why should we condone it when done to someone else?

[Brian 2.0]

 

I am not sure why anyone would consider him a credible threat to belief.

 

I would say people consider his IDEAS, EVIDENCES, ETC. as a threat to belief, not Dawkins' the personal man as a threat.  And as such, diving into his past does nothing to address his points.

[Questing Beast]

He has no points, only rhetoric and exaggeration and melodramatics. The man is a soapbox "preacher" against dogmatic religions, he hates and scorns them all. He attacks them on the most distorted assertions, straw men amundo, and then destroys them. Richard Assertion Dawkins is his full name.

 

Now, when he is talking about science that is a different matter entirely. It's only when he starts hyperventilating about religion that he goes wonky....

[Brian 2.0]

I agree he goes way too far in his religion-is-all-bad rhetoric.  I'm not on Dawkins side on all his points.

 

I just want a fair fight, and I think it unfair to toss him aside simply because he had a militant/religious father.

[EllenMaksoud]

I would say people consider his IDEAS, EVIDENCES, ETC. as a threat to belief, not Dawkins' the personal man as a threat.  And as such, diving into his past does nothing to address his points.

From my own perspective, I was brought up by a very angry, sometimes maniacle step father, and some of what I see in Dawkins sort of triggers old feelings for me. I did not want anything to do with any of the "sanctimonious" until I was in my late 20's, I think mostly because of my step father. When I finally turned to God, I had toddlers and the prospect of ruining them and making them like me was horrifying.  Once I went to my knees and asked Heavenly Father to help me, he answered very quickly. Why he just did not take me right to the Mormons in 1974, I do not know. Perhaps he simply wanted to spare Mormons the stress?

 

I do not know if Dawkins will ever get on his knees and ask Heavenly Father for help.. I am sure if he does, his please will not go in vain.  I think that one of the reasons I react to him so strongly is that perhaps I was just like him?

[The Nehor]

Lest anyone take him too seriously, in his book, "The God Delusion", Chapter 5, the reason for his anger at God and authority issues quickly becomes apparent. He was born in Kenya, the son of a particularly militant and religious father ...

Did he know Obama back then?

[EllenMaksoud]

Did he know Obama back then?

  I doubt it. Kenya was a British Colony then, and Dawkins father was in the Military there during WWII.  If you have seen Shaka Zulu, it just might be indicative of the mind set of British Military.  When I was in Kenya in 2001, I met lots of Kenyans. They were extremely nice generally, spoke English with a British accent, and I left the country loving them.

 

There was no jive talk, hittin your licks or none of that. 

 

If you noticed tonight, the UK voted against action against Syria. 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Did he know Obama back then?

I lol'd

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I agree he goes way too far in his religion-is-all-bad rhetoric.  I'm not on Dawkins side on all his points.

 

I just want a fair fight, and I think it unfair to toss him aside simply because he had a militant/religious father.

As I understand it he is a brilliant scientist. What I think the issue is that he seems to have shleved some of that for being a spokes child for athiesm and being anti-religous. And I wonder if it is possible due in part to his upbringing. Which I think was the point of this thread.

Edited August 30, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[ERayR]

I agree he goes way too far in his religion-is-all-bad rhetoric.  I'm not on Dawkins side on all his points.

 

I just want a fair fight, and I think it unfair to toss him aside simply because he had a militant/religious father.

. 

Edited August 30, 2013 by ERayR

[canard78]

Funny, she didn't mention anything about how good a scientist he is.

Her point was that he is probably prejudiced against believers, due to an overbearing father's influence. We often model our beliefs about Heavenly FATHER on our earthly FATHERS, and therefore, it is relevant to bring such factors as probable prejudice into the discussion.

I watched several debates recently between Dawkins and another British scientist. He admitted that he would be prepared to consider believing in a greater force that was the power being the creation of life. But he particularly rejected the God of the Abrahamic religions.

I'd love to see him do a few rounds with a well informed Mormon scientist and historical apologist. Some of his arguments against Mormonism are frustratingly weak.

[EllenMaksoud]

I agree he goes way too far in his religion-is-all-bad rhetoric.  I'm not on Dawkins side on all his points.

 

I just want a fair fight, and I think it unfair to toss him aside simply because he had a militant/religious father.

How old are you?  I am 66 and there are some very good reasons why I see his issues coloring his reason. Most of us live life with our thinking colored by past events.  He and I perhaps share some harsh events in our past. I know how mine affected my opinions, and I believe I see the same in him. I have heard him speak and read his book. Unless you are fishing for ways to discount belief, I can not see why you would defend him.

[EllenMaksoud]

Psychoanalyzing anyone via long distance is at best a wrong headed thing to do, and any conclusions based on that long distance psychoanalyzing are always suspect. Moreover they are virtually always wrong.

 

We don't appreciate when it is done to Joseph Smith. Why should we condone it when done to someone else?

Because, I endured some pretty horrific trauma at the hands of a "father" figure, and it poisoned my life in unspeakable ways until Heavenly  Father rescued me. I believe I see the same sort of damage in him.

[Brian 2.0]

How old are you?  I am 66 and there are some very good reasons why I see his issues coloring his reason. Most of us live life with our thinking colored by past events.  He and I perhaps share some harsh events in our past. I know how mine affected my opinions, and I believe I see the same in him. I have heard him speak and read his book. Unless you are fishing for ways to discount belief, I can not see why you would defend him.

 

I have no doubt that his past influences his opinions and how he reasons.  No one can escape bias.  And knowing that past might be helpful as one looks at his arguements.  But the facts of his past do not make his arguements invalid outright.  The arguements must be looked at on their own and be supported or discredited on their own merit. 

 

I took your OP as being dismissive of Dawkin's arguements simply because of his past -- with no examples of how his arguments themselves are faulty (and I know some of them are).

 

I'm sure you wouldn't want me to dismiss all your posts simply because you share a similar past to Dawkins, would you?

 

We do this all the time with looking at the works of critics and apologists...

Some want to dismiss the arguements of non-LDS Egpytologists in regards to the BoA simply because they are critical of the church -- which I think is wrong.

Others want to dismiss the arguements of LDS Egyptologists in regard to the BoA simply because the are members of the faith -- which I also think is wrong.

The arguments should be looked at on their own to determine their value.

 

That is the point I was getting at.  I in no way intended want to make light of your, or Dawkins' experiences and say that they don't mean anything or have any effect of them.

[EllenMaksoud]

I have no doubt that his past influences his opinions and how he reasons.  No one can escape bias.  And knowing that past might be helpful as one looks at his arguements.  But the facts of his past do not make his arguements invalid outright.  The arguements must be looked at on their own and be supported or discredited on their own merit. 

 

I took your OP as being dismissive of Dawkin's arguements simply because of his past -- with no examples of how his arguments themselves are faulty (and I know some of them are).

 

I'm sure you wouldn't want me to dismiss all your posts simply because you share a similar past to Dawkins, would you?

 

We do this all the time with looking at the works of critics and apologists...

Some want to dismiss the arguements of non-LDS Egpytologists in regards to the BoA simply because they are critical of the church -- which I think is wrong.

Others want to dismiss the arguements of LDS Egyptologists in regard to the BoA simply because the are members of the faith -- which I also think is wrong.

The arguments should be looked at on their own to determine their value.

 

That is the point I was getting at.  I in no way intended want to make light of your, or Dawkins' experiences and say that they don't mean anything or have any effect of them.

I just see Dr Dawkins as someone who needs to separate his childhood trauma, from Heavenly Father.  My own childhood left me really angry, actually beyond description, so I responded certain extremely harsh ways to the religious.  I believe I see similar issues in him. Heavenly Father dealt with me in ways that forced me to look at life in a different way. So, I do not know why he is the way he is. I have three siblings who are absolutely hostile toward any sort of belief. It is heart breaking.

[cdowis]

 But the facts of his past do not make his arguements invalid outright.  The arguements must be looked at on their own and be supported or discredited on their own merit. 

 

 

!. He throws all religions into one basket, using their weakest beliefs in strawman arguments.  I remember his using a video from some creationist who was using the banana as proof of intelligent design -- even including the stem as a "tab" to open the peeling!  The problem was that the original banana had none of these features, and were bred by man.

 

2. His arguments against Mormonism consists of strident ad hominems and mockery.

 

3, His favorite argument is "I don't understand, therefore...." and "If I were god,I would do things differently."  He uses his personal set of standards and understanding to judge the creator. 

 

"Since god does not do it my way, he does not exist."  I remember his criticism of the atonement, "If god is so great and smart, why did he find it necessary to have Jesus die?  Surely he could have come up with something better -- why not just show mercy and forgive sins."

 

Bottom line--  While a brilliant scientist, he displays a remarkable lack of knowledge of divinity.  He cannot get past his prejudices to take a serious look at Mormon doctrine and theology.  Perhaps at some level he knows that LDS doctrines are too difficult to tackle with a simple dismissive wave of the hand.

[Questing Beast]

!. He throws all religions into one basket, using their weakest beliefs in strawman arguments.  I remember his using a video from some creationist who was using the banana as proof of intelligent design -- even including the stem as a "tab" to open the peeling!  The problem was that the original banana had none of these features, and were bred by man.

 

2. His arguments against Mormonism consists of strident ad hominems and mockery.

 

3, His favorite argument is "I don't understand, therefore...." and "If I were god,I would do things differently."  He uses his personal set of standards and understanding to judge the creator. 

 

"Since god does not do it my way, he does not exist."  I remember his criticism of the atonement, "If god is so great and smart, why did he find it necessary to have Jesus die?  Surely he could have come up with something better -- why not just show mercy and forgive sins."

 

Bottom line--  While a brilliant scientist, he displays a remarkable lack of knowledge of divinity.  He cannot get past his prejudices to take a serious look at Mormon doctrine and theology.  Perhaps at some level he knows that LDS doctrines are too difficult to tackle with a simple dismissive wave of the hand.

Why not attack a particular religion by its weakest beliefs? That makes perfectly good sense. The trouble is when Dawkins creates a weakness out of either ignorance or deliberate distortion.

 

So what if his attacks on Mormonism are ad hominems and insults. He's just showing his ignorance again.

 

I think questioning the atonement paradigm is legitimate. "God" Is smarter than that, and much, much bigger. Dawkins' objection to Judeo-Christianity on this is spot on.

 

His knowledge about Deity is just as complete and sound as the next human's. It is just irreverent toward the dogmatic Abrahamic God. In a way he's daring God to confront him, and I reckon "he" Is, since that is what "God" does. But the confrontation is on "God's" terms not ours....

[Rob Osborn]

Dawkins homework and reasoning gets an "F" when it comes to God and religion. Its truly sad that he cant reason on the simplest of matters to see the truth. His blindness for truth is shocking. His reasoning tjat he doesnt believe in God because of all the bad deeds done in the name of God is just plain blindness and a lack of reasoning. As if anyone hasnt noticed but we humans are sinful ny nature. Dawkins himself believes in ethics and moralsa part of our natural fiber and being. Thus, we have none to blame but ourselves ultimately. .

This puts Dawkins in a bad position because in fact he does aknowledge God as a reality. How? Because- if he believes his real conclusions that no God exists, that he is made up, then all sinful acts, regardless of whose name they were done in is really just a lie and only we ourselves, the natural course of evolved beings, are solely and entirely responsible. Get that? But that is not truly Dawkins position. No, he truly aknowledges God because he blames God and religion for all bad worldwide conflict within our race. Forget evolution for a moment because he is making a more profound and damaging doctrine. If Dawkins truly beliwvs there is no God then He as a real person could have no effect because he couldnt exist. This is why I see Dawkins as an anti-christ. Its because he does aknowledge God and the, blatenly, calls Him out and accuses Him in public eye for why we have problems in society.

[Calm]

For those of you interested in the topic, Juliann pointed me toward a nice book review that has several books that look like good reading---strong science, good theology--- in this area and the essay is nice reading on its own, especially for that insight on where JFS picked up his anti-evolution stance.  I can see several I would like to add to my list....I think I am going to finally break down and start using ebooks this Christmas, if only to keep down on clutter in my bedroom with piles of books around, but also because my hands are weaker these days and holding a tablet is easier than a book.

 

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/endless-forms-most-beautiful-the-uses-and-abuses-of-evolutionary-biology-in-six-works/

[canard78]

So what if his attacks on Mormonism are ad hominems and insults. He's just showing his ignorance again.

I think questioning the atonement paradigm is legitimate. "God" Is smarter than that, and much, much bigger. Dawkins' objection to Judeo-Christianity on this is spot on.

His attacks on Mormonism undermine him, because they're so ill-informed. It's like he's read the first couple of pages of anti-Mormon website and moved on. It's not possible, in his mind, that God visited Joseph, so everything else is a fraud.

The atonement doesn't have to be about a small god who lacks intellect. Instead even Dawkins should be able to understand the power of symbols. Of course God didn't have to send his son to atone (or himself incarnate depending on your Christian perspective). The message and implications of the atonement is powerful as a concept and symbol. There could well have been many mechanics for teaching judgement and mercy. Grace and agency. But the one selected was impactful enough to influence billions to accept and embrace it.

Edited August 31, 2013 by canard78

[SeekingUnderstanding]

His attacks on Mormonism undermine him, because they're so ill-informed. It's like he's read the first couple of pages of anti-Mormon website and moved on. It's not possible, in his mind, that God visited Joseph, so everything else is a fraud.

The atonement doesn't have to be about a small god who lacks intellect. Instead even Dawkins should be able to understand the power of symbols. Of course God didn't have to send his son to atone (or himself incarnate depending on your Christian perspective). The message and implications of the atonement is powerful as a concept and symbol. There could well have been many mechanics for teaching judgement and mercy. Grace and agency. But the one selected was impactful enough to influence billions to accept and embrace it.

Your views on atonement match mine, but do you think they could find any support in scripture or official LDS doctrine?

[cdowis]

His attacks on Mormonism undermine him, because they're so ill-informed. It's like he's read the first couple of pages of anti-Mormon website and moved on. It's not possible, in his mind, that God visited Joseph, so everything else is a fraud.

The atonement doesn't have to be about a small god who lacks intellect. Instead even Dawkins should be able to understand the power of symbols.

 

It is more than a symbol.  Read Alma 42 -- mercy cannot rob justice, or God would cease to be God.  Christ paid the price demanded by justice, which made mercy possible.

 

If Dawkins actually knew and understood what Mormonism taught, his head would explode.

Edited August 31, 2013 by cdowis